ban on PDR Public Display of Religion in French schools

First Germany now France. Chirac supports a law to ban "head scarves" and other items that tell one's religion from French schools. BBC says Chicac's position was, "He said secularism was one of France's greatest achievements and played a vital role in ensuring social harmony.". Secularism is great, I'm all for it. But I don't think secularism extends to the conduct and dress of the students. I think leaders like Chicac are confused in that secularism in the curriculum demands secularism in the student body as well.

And this is done under the guise of "ensuring social harmony". Chirac wants to ensure harmony by removing difference. He may as well have every student wear a burka to school. Also if France needs to remove any mention of religion from schools in order to "ensuring social harmony", they have some serious problems with their student body's behavior.

I remember from the last time this came up in Germany that one of the secondary reasons for banning head scarves was the "free" these young women from the sexist doctrine of their religion. How heroic! I wonder if the same thing is going on in France?

In the US these things would be stopped by the first amendment. Don't citizens in France have some basic rights that cannot be violated by silly legislation?

It does appear to be quite the Napoleonic decision: unity above all. Of course, by forcing people into some obligatory form of unity, you may very well estrange them further.

It does fit well with the French tradition of suppressing minority culture and custom, the prime example would be the treatment of minority languages since Napoleon's time (though great changes for the better have been made since the 1960s). I'm thinking of Breton in Brittany, Dutch in Le Nord (a region once known as South Flanders, or French Flanders). The suppression of the Corse culture in Corsica.

I'm not happy with this decision at all, but I may be wrong.

After all, it concerns public schools only. And it includes displays of catholicism, which can hardly be termed a minority in France. And it is probably best viewed as a dress code. Dress codes exist, even in those countries we like to think of as free countries. The US is quite shy about bearing a woman's breasts. The US and Europe are shy about bearing man's and woman's crotches. That's a dress code, and that's not limited to public schools either.

But is wearing an overlarge cross (as some catholics/christians in general like to do) the same as walking around with your Polish hanging out? Is wearing a head scarf the same as going monokini on the beach?

In the US these things would be stopped by the first amendment. Don't citizens in France have some basic rights that cannot be violated by silly legislation?

This coming from an inhabitant of a rabidly nationalist and fundamentalist christian country is more than highly ironic. What country was it where pupils had to pledge allegiance to flag and god? hmm, Iraq? Of course, no student in the US would ever be banned for wearing religigious symbols, right? (seems the 1st amendment does not protect satanists, but what the heck if one is on a hypocritical anti-european rant).

As usual, you are offering a totally lopsided view. France not just banned the display of any religious symbol in school (which I consider a good thing [tm] since religion should be kept in private) but is the first country in the west to recognize the highest dates of all three adamit religions by making them a public holiday. How does the US recognize Islam in this regard?

First Germany now France. Chirac supports a law to ban "head scarves" and other items that tell one's religion from French schools. BBC says Chicac's position was, "He said secularism was one of France's greatest achievements and played a vital role in ensuring social harmony.". Secularism is great, I'm all for it. But I don't think secularism extends to the conduct and dress of the students. I think leaders like Chicac are confused in that secularism in the curriculum demands secularism in the student body as well.

And this is done under the guise of "ensuring social harmony". Chirac wants to ensure harmony by removing difference. He may as well have every student wear a burka to school. Also if France needs to remove any mention of religion from schools in order to "ensuring social harmony", they have some serious problems with their student body's behavior.

I remember from the last time this came up in Germany that one of the secondary reasons for banning head scarves was the "free" these young women from the sexist doctrine of their religion. How heroic! I wonder if the same thing is going on in France?

In the US these things would be stopped by the first amendment. Don't citizens in France have some basic rights that cannot be violated by silly legislation?

In the US these things would be stopped by the first amendment. Don't citizens in France have some basic rights that cannot be violated by silly legislation?

Not true. When in school your rights kind of go out the window. We talked about this at length in my government class last year. You have virtually no freedom of speech, including religious speech. Anything that you say that is offensive to another student or teacher can be used to get you in trouble (detentions, suspension, expulsion...ect.). From what I understand, a school is not an environment that is protected by the bill of rights.

" the problem is not an heardscarf, but the increasing and uncontroled flow of foreign immigration"

Sorry for linking to an french article, but basically it say that The front national (the biggest right wing party in France), is against such a law, because, he want to promote communatarism, will lead to more tension, and want to promote an aparthead Ã* la french with the national preference.

In short, the more problems with muslims they will have, the more he will be happy. Le pen is against this law, because it will contradict his projects.

Not true. When in school your rights kind of go out the window. We talked about this at length in my government class last year. You have virtually no freedom of speech, including religious speech. Anything that you say that is offensive to another student or teacher can be used to get you in trouble (detentions, suspension, expulsion...ect.). From what I understand, a school is not an environment that is protected by the bill of rights.

That's not true, unless you're talking about a private school. This Tinker case is the basic law on that.

It does appear to be quite the Napoleonic decision: unity above all. Of course, by forcing people into some obligatory form of unity, you may very well estrange them further.

Actually, Napoleon composed with the Church and with the minority community, the active imposition of the Republican rule more in the spirit of 89.

Quote:

It does fit well with the French tradition of suppressing minority culture and custom, the prime example would be the treatment of minority languages since Napoleon's time (though great changes for the better have been made since the 1960s).

Actually, since the Revolution. In 1789, less than half of the French inhabitants were native French speakers, they either spoke local French patois (Picard, Berrichon, Angevin, Gallo), a southern patois (Provençal, Occitan, Gascon) or Franco-Provençal (Lyonnais, Dauphinois), and then of course there were speakers of altogether other languages: Breton, Corsican, Flemish, Basque, Catalan, Lotharingian, etc.

The citizens' army of the Year II, which later became the Great Army, even more than the later Great Army of Napoleon, brought all these where they had to speak the language of the republic, while defending their beheading of the king, and trouncing Europe's professional armies in the process.

but it was compulsory scolarisation, which insisted in learning to read in French as well as teaching in French (prior to the Revolution, the kids wouold often be taught in dialect how to read in Latin).

So, it's basically similar to how the established, written vernaculars came to be spoken by a majority of the population in many countries, except that in France there was a concious decision to suppress any language other than the official one.

While may be getting there at a slower pace, France is on the way to where Spain is in the matter of languages, if not of regionl autonomy; but Breton and Provençal are more in the situation of Aragones than of Catalan, that is: barely spoken.

Quote:

After all, it concerns public schools only. And it includes displays of catholicism, which can hardly be termed a minority in France. And it is probably best viewed as a dress code. Dress codes exist, even in those countries we like to think of as free countries. The US is quite shy about bearing a woman's breasts. The US and Europe are shy about bearing man's and woman's crotches. That's a dress code, and that's not limited to public schools either.

It's more an opposition to religious symbols used as banners or uniforms, particularly if they are used on state premices as signs of defiance against the secular nature of the state; it originated in the nineteenth century with the intention to uproot the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on public and polititcal life; it took decades and was only implemented in 1905 after all other options were exhausted.

The attitude had been more relaxed in later years as Catholic militancy had been broken down. However, the emergence of other militant religious movements, ones for which religion should be all-encompassing and therefore the principle of separation between state and religion menaingless, had awaken the old anti-clerical reflexes.

Actually I'd have gone much farther, perhaps due to my southerner's temparment, not that I'm a Kemalist, more of a Bourguibist actually.

I'd like this extended to the rest of society. Any public display of religious symbols should be fined and fined heavily. You want a Crescent or a Cross or a Star or a statue of Buddha to adorn your building, then you should pay a heavy fine. Religion is a scam. And it's about time these scam artists start paying the dues that they steal from others in the name of "God". Personal display of "religious symbols" or "religious dress" in a public space should be similarly addressed. Don't ban it. Just make them pay for it. Like a special tax on the rich that the Leftists always clamor for. BTW, I also support taxing prostitutes.

France is justified in this for reasons many here can't grasp and that I won't explain, since it's the subject of an article I'm writing. However, if you think about it a little, you'll probably see why.

France is justified in this for reasons many here can't grasp and that I won't explain, since it's the subject of an article I'm writing. However, if you think about it a little, you'll probably see why.

" the problem is not an heardscarf, but the increasing and uncontroled flow of foreign immigration"

Sorry for linking to an french article, but basically it say that The front national (the biggest right wing party in France), is against such a law, because, he want to promote communatarism, will lead to more tension, and want to promote an aparthead Ã* la french with the national preference.

In short, the more problems with muslims they will have, the more he will be happy. Le pen is against this law, because it will contradict his projects.